Page images
PDF
EPUB

blood. The accidents of the bread and wine, that is, their shape, smell, taste, and colour, remain; but they no longer belong to the bread and wine which are annihilated......The body which is present in the Eucharist is the same which was born of the Virgin, which was crucified, which rose again, and is ascended into heaven." Thus contradicting Mr. Plunkett, “It is in the Sacrament living, and just as it was when he said to his disciples, This is my body.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Now of this doctrine Mr. Plunkett says that he understands it no more than if it were laid down as a dogma that it was of a blue colour or six feet high;" and we believe him. But for this assertion of his the Cardinal would "write him down" a heretic; and in the 16th century he would have been burned, as Latimer was. He further says, "I feel satisfied, as a sincere Christian resting on Scripture and reason, that it is not necessary for me to involve myself in these mysteries." We think so too; and wonder why the Church of Rome cannot imitate the wisdom of the Church of England, and be content with maintaining a real presence, without defining what that real presence is. Never was there greater wisdom, wit, or discretion, than in these memorable lines of the Virgin Queen.

"Christ was the word that spake it;

He took the bread and brake it :
And what he then did make it,

That I believe, and take it."

Some believe in a corporal presence called Transubstantiation; some in another sort of corporal presence, called Consubstantiation; others in another sort of presence, called Impanation, where the body is not with, but in the bread; others maintain a real but sacramental presence; others say that the bread and wine are only signs and symbols of the body of Christ, which is present neither really nor corporally. Now we, for our parts, think that only one of these opinions is right; but then we cannot conceive why the people who maintain the others might not be permitted to take the Sacrament at the same altar without offence either to God or man. But no, says the Roman Catholic, you are all heretics; you shall not communicate with us; and if you persist in your opinion, you must be damned: and all this because we really cannot believe a wafer to be a human body-a proposition which one of the cleverest men in his Majesty's dominions, a statesman, legislator, lawyer, and orator says he no more comprehends than if it were laid down as a dogma "that it was of a blue colour, or six feet high." The Roman Catholics may complain of Transubstantiation as a test, &c.; we wish

they had the wisdom to make all tests unnecessary; but let them remember the adage,

Nec lex fuit æquior ulla

Quam necis artifices arte perie suâ.

Phalars was burned in his own brazen bull. For four centuries Transubstantiation was made the test of heresy, and numbers of human beings have perished by the dreadful death of fire, as victims to the Moloch of the Church of Rome. It is, then, but a mild and gentle retribution that the same doctrine should now, by their own obstinacy, be made the test of exclusion from that political power_which, when they possessed it, they so mur derously abused.

The Fourteenth Letter is devoted to the consideration of the power of the Pope in temporals, the murder of heretics, and the not keeping of faith with them; doctrines too important for discussion within our narrow limits; we must therefore pass them over, and only remark upon a most extraordinary assertion of Dr. Doyle's, in his examination before the Commons. He says, that "as far as he is acquainted with the history of the claims of the Popes to temporal interference, they rested them upon some temporal right previously acquired by themselves or their predecessors, with the single exception of Boniface VIII." Now if he really believed what he said, he is a very bad historian, and has as short a memory as any great wit ever had before; for no longer than twenty years ago, Pope Pius VII. claimed the general right of deposing heretic princes, in terms as lofty as ever any of his predecessors did in the very summit of their power, That there may be no mistake upon this subject, we will give his Holiness's own words in "choice Italian."

In the course of those events which succeeded the French revolutionary war, and in the transfer of property which ensued, some ecclesiastical territories had been given as indemnities to Protestant Sovereigns; to which the Pope refused to give his consent, and sent an order on the subject to his Nuncio at Vienna, in which were the following words:

3

"Ma non solamente la chiesa ha procurato d' impedire che gli eretici occupassero i beni ecclesiastici, ha inoltre stabilito come pena dell' eresia la confisca e perdita dei beni ecclesiastici posseduti. Questa pena ......é decretata per rapporto ai beni de privati nella decretale d' Innocenzo III. riportata nel. capo Vergentis 10. de Haeret : e per quel che riguarda i principati feudi 'é pene regola del divitto canonico nel cap. absolutos: 16 de Hæret: che sudditi di un principe manifestamente eretico rimangono assoluti da qualunque omagio, fedeltá, ed ossequio verso il medesimo; e niuno che sia alcun poco versato nella storia puo ignorare le sentenze di deposizione pronunciate dai Pontefici e dai concili contro de'

principi ostinati nell' eresia. Se non che siamo ora pur troppo giunti in tempi cosi calamitosi e di tanta umiliazione per la sposa di Gesu-Cristo che siccome a lei non è possibile usare, cosi reppure è spediente ricordare queste sue santissime massime di giusto rigore contro i nemici e i rebelli della fede. Ma se non può esercitare il suo diritto di deporre da loro principati e di dichiarare decaduti da laro beni gli eretici, potrebbe ella mai positivamente permettere per aggiungere loro nuovi principati e nuovi beni, d' esserne spogliata ella stessa? Quale occasione di diridere la chiesa non si darebbe agli eretici medesimi ed agl' increduli, i quali insultando al di lei dolore, direbbero esservi trovati finalmente i mezzi, onde farla divenir tollerante?" &c.

The Pope, we see, says that "no one the least versed in history can be ignorant of the sentences of deposition pronounced by Popes and Councils against Princes obstinate in heresy," and talks of the holy maxims of the Church concerning rebels against the faith; and yet Dr. Doyle is so little versed in history as to say he knows nothing at all about these maxims. Really, it seems that the Doctor must be very ignorant, or, what is worse, very insincere.

There is one more point to which we must advert, and that is the comparative intolerance of the Churches of England and Rome. It is strange enough that any comparison on such a, subject should ever be made; but it is so: and as there are some persons who will believe any thing, this is worth consideration and answer. It is insinuated that both Churches equally hold exclusive salvation. The quibble upon which this pretence is justified, is the assumed fact of our both affirming that there is no salvation out of the Church. Now, in the first place, we do not assert this; and, in the next, if we did, it would prove nothing. Our 18th Article anathematizes those "who presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby all men can be saved." Now there is no assertion about the Church: the Article, as Dr. Phillpotts says, only

"Condemns the impiety of holding that men may be saved by virtue of any false religion: but it does not deny that God, for Christ's sake, will extend his saving mercy to innumerable multitudes of all nations and countries, even of those who never heard of Christ: it only af firms, that whosoever are saved, are saved by virtue of that holy name, whether they have heard it or not."

What is there of bigotry in this? But Calvin said, Extra gremium ecclesiæ nulla salus. Well, and what if he did? Did he mean that there was no salvation out of the Church of Ge

neva? Did he mean that there was no salvation out of this or that particular congregation assembled under a bishop or a presbytery? No: by the word Church, he meant the communion of all true believers collected into one body under Christ their Head, and that out of this none to whom the Gospel has been proposed can be saved on the terms of the Gospel. Is not this as different from the Roman Catholic doctrine as light is from darkness? By the word Church, Protestants mean the communion of all true believers, in all ages of the world, united into one body under Christ their Head; while by the same word the Roman Catholics mean all true believers who have been collected together into one body under a bishop elected by the cardinals at Rome. See the Most Reverend James Butler's Catechism, approved by the four Roman Catholic archbishops of Ireland.

66 Question. Are all obliged to be of the true Church? Answer. Yes; none can be saved out of it.

Question. How is the Church one?

Answer. In all its members believing the same truths, having the same sacraments, and being under one head on earth.”

And Dr. Delahogue, professor at Maynooth, in his treatise De Ecclesia Christi, says, "It is a most certain doctrine, that all schismatics, even though they do not err in doctrine, are out of the Church, and the way of salvation.”

The Council of Trent has ninety-two sentences of everlasting condemnation on the Sacraments alone. It also says, that all baptized persons, whether baptized by heretics or not, are subject to the laws of the Church, which it calls the mother and mistress of all churches. And the Roman Catechism says, "Hæretici et schismatici qui ab ecclesiâ desciverunt, &c. non negandum tamen quin in ecclesiæ potestate sunt, ut qui ab eâ in judicium vocentur puniantur et anathemate damnentur." See Catechismus Romanus, p. 78, ed. 1587. If all baptized persons then are in the power of the Church, and all who are in the power of the Church, and refuse to submit to its authority, must be accursed, we are in that unhappy number;-and the Church of Rome is, surely, a little more exclusive than the Church of England.

We have a great deal more to say on this subject; but must now bring this Article to a close with our acknowledgments to Dr. Phillpotts for the fresh proof of his zeal and ability, which his Letters to Mr. Butler furnish.

A Defence of Religious Liberty, in a series of Letters, with notes and illustrations, from a Lover of Truth. By the Author of " Letters on Prejudice," and "Sermons on Christian Responsibility." 8vo. pp. 156. 3s. Cadell. 1825.

THE title of this work is any thing but an index of its contents. A work which calls itself "A Defence of religious Liberty" ought either to contain a full treatise upon the general principles of toleration; or at least a disquisition upon the subject of church authority, and a refutation of the exorbitant claims of the church of Rome. This, however, contains neither one nor the other, but relates principally, if not entirely, to a very limited sort of liberty, namely, that of reading the Holy Scriptures; and if the title, and indeed the work itself had been confined to this particular, it would perhaps have answered its purpose better. Diffuse disquisitions upon controversial subjects answer no purpose but that of puzzling the reader, and weakening the cause which they are intended to support. "The Defence" however furnishes us with a considerable mass of valuable information respecting the increased boldness with which, within the last twelve months, the Roman Catholic clergy have reasserted the most obnoxious tenets of their church. The accession of Leo XII. to the papacy, and the stupendous power of the Catholic Association in Ireland, have done wonders in this respect. Doctrines which a few years ago were cautiously hid under a bushel, are now placed in the brazen candlestick, and set aloft upon the hill of controversy, to give light to the whole Roman Catholic world.

There is no doctrine in which the change has been more remarkable than that which relates to the study. of the Scriptures. In 1814 the Rev. Andrew Scott, a Scotch Roman Catholic priest said, "I can publicly declare (without danger of being contradicted by my brethren or censured by my superiors) that it is not at present-that it never was-a principle of the Catholic church that the scriptures should be withheld from the laity; and there never was any law enacted by the supreme legislative authority in the catholic church by which the reading of the scriptures was prohibited." In 1812 the Rev. Peter Gandolphy said, "If any of the Bible Societies feel disposed to try our esteem for the Bible by presenting us with new copies of a Catholic version with or without notes, we will gratefully accept and faithfully distribute them." (See Correspondence on the formation, objects and plan of the Roman catholic Bible Society, &c. 1813.) Such were the sen

« PreviousContinue »